so say for flop oop one bet size one raise size, then say 3-4 bet sizes for IP then 1 bet and raise size for turn n river and a 3 cap bet, should provide pretty accurate results?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't fight it using the search function. If for example in PLOCalc I calculate flop equities and then would like to know how a specific hand from the IP range performs against a subset of OP's range for the flop (for example 90th percentile), there is no way to calculate this right? I can only view an isolated hand in the context of our opponent's entire range, correct?

What sometimes happens is that older version of Pio is still run when the newest one is installed. It happens when you selected a different installation folder for the new version (the updater sees the newest one there but you still run the old one for example via the old shortcut).
To ensure it's the newest version:

1)Run the updater, take notice of the installation path (C:\PioSOLVER by default)
2)Make sure to run PioViewer from the installation folder
3)Confirm the version by going to About in the top menu. It should be 1.10.22.9 as of right now.

Yes, although as usual "pretty accurate" is a judgement call. It is likely to be very decent in a sense that if you use that strategy on the flop and allow more bet sizes later you wouldn't lose much EV in comparison to calculating flop strategies with the assumption the turn/river bet sizes are already there.

To do this there is a filter function. There are arrows between tabs (you can create more if you want to filter the range more times). When you click it there are filtering options. What you should do is filter opponent's range to contain 90% of their hand. Then recalc equity in a new tab and you will have equities of your range vs 90% of opponent's range. Now you can look at a specific hand in your range.
Let me know if you need more detailed instructions of how to do that.

This is probably an elementary question, but:

Once I have an incomplete tree like a small save or micro save tree how do I easily recalculate the entire tree so I can node lock? I need to know how to do this for postflop trees and preflop trees?

Thanks!

'View' -> 'Add Flop Tab' is what I was missing. The tool makes more sense now, thanks.

Trees calculated with the newest version always contain the config. It appears when the tree is loaded. The best way is to just build a new tree using that config and solve it.
Older trees unfortunately had separate config files. If you can't find it anymore it's possible to recalculate without it but this way is slower and less reliable than just calculating from scratch. To do that:

1)load the small saves
2)ctrl+b to bring arbitrary solver command window
3)type:
rebuild_forgotten_streets
4)run the solver

notice that step 3) might be very painful if the tree was bigger than you have RAM installed as it will start using swap file on disk and everything is going to be very slow.

(See edit at the end of this post. Only my third question is outstanding.)

Three questions regarding raise size formats and bet/raise size labelings.

(Incidentally, there is no such thing as a user manual for PioSOLVER, is there? Only a bunch of feature review videos and tutorial videos? I can deal with that but I'd like to make sure I am not missing on a possible source of documentation.)

When we input "raise sizes" as percentages in the tree building parameters, those are percentages of the pot including the opponent's raise and our call, right? For instance, if the initial pot is 100 chips and the opponent bets 50 chips, a raise to 100% means a raise to 250 chips (3*50+100)?

And in the case where we input the raise sizes using the multiplier format (e.g. 2.5x or 3x) is that still a multiple of the pot (including the previous bet and our call), such that "1x" is the same a "100"% or is that a multiple of the opponent's bet?

Lastly, when we input multiple bet and/or raise sizes, in the tree browser PIO labels those sizes with arbitrary looking numbers such as "BET 18", "RAISE 65", etc. Is there any way to find out in the browser what sizes those labels correspond to? Is it safe to assume that they always are labelled by decreasing size order?

***
On edit: I have found answers to most of my questions in the Skype group FAQ. There appears to be a typo, though. They say:

'75 - a number is interpreted as % of the pot. So expression 75 will add to the tree bet or raise 100% of the pot. In case of raise it’s calculated as “call first. And bet 100% of the pot”'

So, they use 75 as an example but then illustrate with the case of 100.

As for the format "3x", the FAQ states that it's a multiple of the opponent's bet or raise rather than the pot.

The reason we don't have a manual is that maintaining a manual would discourage us from adding/improving things as then the manual has to be updated as well. This is just too much work and it's the way most software goes these days. Manual is a good idea if you release something and don't issue updates.

Yes, it's a mistake. It should of course be 75%.

Yes. Another undocumented feature is adding "c" postfix, like this: 100c
This will add a bet exactly 100 chips big. This is useful for limit holdem and other variations with set bet sizes.
You can experiment with those things by building a tree and then browsing it without solving (so it doesn't take much time).

Those are labelled according to how many chips are bet at given point. So yes, they are sorted from the biggest one to the smallest one. For example on this screenshot:

https://gyazo.com/c733ec8137f8c846007341f1b8bb1d8c

The numbers on the left:
94 94 180 (368) mean:
how much OOP invested so far, how much IP invested so far, starting pot, total pot now.

As to the bet sizes there is an:
-all-in (816 chips)
-bet 258 chips (which 70% of the pot)
-bet 110 chips (which is 30% of the pot)
-check

I hope that clears things a bit.

How should one interpret the displayed global IP EV and OOP EV at various nodes in the tree browser?

I see wildly inconsistent results when I click either on the buttons EV "OOP", EV "IP" or rather on the "Strategy + EV" button.

The number I am looking at is what seems to be the aggregated result displayed immediately to the left of the "clone:" buttons. This number is labeled either "OOP EV ..." or "IP EV ...".

When I click on "Strategy + EV", the number being displayed is either "IP EV ..." or "OOP EV ..." depending on the selected node and who's turn it is to act. However, if it's a node where the IP player is next to act, then "IP EV ..." is displayed. If I then click on "IP EV", a different value is being displayed with the very same label "IP EV...". The same is true if I am at a node when OOP is next to act and I click either "Strategy + EV" or "OOP EV". I get two different results, oftentimes not even in the same ballpark. At some nodes, the EV displayed is 0.000 when I click "Strategy + EV". I have no idea how to interpret those inconsistencies.

I am using the most recent build of PioViewer (1.10.22.9)

I should have guessed that. Maybe it was too obvious.

It does. Thanks you so much. The software is amazing.

OK, I think I found out the problem. It seems to be a bug with the display of that field. The buttons "IP EV" and "OOP EV" are working correctly, but when we click on the button "Strategy + EV", for some reason, the field "IP EV ..." or "OOP EV ..." is updated, correspondigly, to display the EV associated with the bottommost action of the next player to act. When this is a fold, the EV 0.000 is understandably displayed.

Yes, thank you for reporting. It must have happened recently with the updates. We will fix ASAP.

Hi Apologies if answered before.

I am trying to set up multiple spots, I do not mean scripting the same spot over many flops.

What I want to do is review my playing session and set up all the spots in different situations I come across. Set them all up then leave them running say over night or during the day. So I can review them once finished. A bit like scripting but for different situations.

Best regards

Any plans to make pio be able to solve for multiple players?

You could just create a script for each hand using 1 flop. After you open one of the trees in the folder u can search for the others using cntrl+shift+O

This is right now difficult to do (you would need to join many script) but it's something that is in plans for near future.

Plans - yes but you will need very serious hardware to make it happen.

Hi, i have a postflop sim saved with a micro tree (only flops),
is it possible to change the turn&river sizings that will be recalculated when browsing it in pioviewer ?

The complexity (size) of the game trees isn't linear with the number of players, is it?

It's not possible directly but you can use "create subtree configuration" feature (Tree in the top menu) to copy the ranges and bet sizes then you can change bet sizes on the turn/river and build a new tree from the turn.
The result is going to be the same but it's maybe a bit more clicking.

It doesn't. Even if you only allow 2 players postflop (reasonable way to solve preflop) you have:
-two players: 2 possible postflop matchups
-three players: 3 possible postflop matchups
-four players: 6 possible postflop matchups
-five players: 10 possible postflop matchups
-six players: 15 possible postflop matchups

and that is only for simple actions, once you allow things like raise, call call, 3bet, fold fold, call the number of preflop exits explodes.

I have purchased pio pro and wish to install it on two separate computers. I was emailed 1 activation key by Piosolver. Will this single key work for both computers or do I need to request a new key for the 2nd computer?
Thanks

Yes, just use the same key.

I'm testing Piosolver, something gave me a doubt.

Why do we use a range of villains to base our GTO strategy?
When we assume a range of the opponent, are not we playing exploratively?
(we also entered into a guessing game, since in theory we do not know exactly with the villain plays)

A game based on GTO, should not assume a random range of the opponent ?
That is, in the GTO we work with the possibility that he is making the most crazy moves possible with any type of hand.

For example, establish that the range of Opponent EP is 22+, Ts +, A2s +, AJo+, KQo +.
For me it seems that it would be analogous from the assumption that an opponent in stone-paper-scissors, uses only paper.
Nothing against this assumption, but if we start from it, we are no longer basing ourselves on a GTO game ourselves.
We are exploiting the opponent, and also opening a breach to be exploited.

The reason is that we are solving postflop (at least in the basic/pro version of Pio). We are not solving the full game (unless using the preflop solver).

Yes, that's why in the preflop solver you can specify full ranges which are given not by our assumptions but by the rules of the game.

It's hard to give a good analogy to RPS as in this game opponents make just one move.
Solving starting on the flop is similar to solving a chess positions where a few first moves are forced or to solving a specific backgammon position.

Yes, when solving postflop we based the solving on an assumption. The hope is that if we our assumption is close enough to GTO then the solution postflop still works even if the opponent does something completely different preflop. For example if they play much tighter preflop we will give up some money applying our calculated strategy but we make it back but their preflop folds.
If you would like to solve the game without any assumptions you have start preflop. The problem is that those games are very big. Pio preflop solver solves HU preflop games but that requires a powerful computer with at least 64GB of RAM.

Thanks for the reply, Punter
It was an enlightening answer.

But I had two more doubts based on what you said ..

Okay, certain versions of the Solver start in posflop, and it's based on a certain scenario in preflop.

But speaking specifically of posflop ....

In which of these two ways Solver works?

1 - The Solver no longer makes any presumption about the range of the opponent, only considers the range established in preflop.
That is, completely crazy moves are taken into consideration as much as others.
Example of an opponent's crazy play: On the flop, he folds strong and medium hands, while calling with the worst hands of the range.


2 - The Solver works with ranges of the opponent that are minimally reasonable, and disregards crazy moves - that is, the solver makes assumptions about the range of the opponent.
In this case, we would not lose in the long run, because with these crazy moves the opponent would naturally put himself in very bad situations.
You say something like this in the last paragraph when you talk about preflop.
"For example, if they play much tighter preflop we will give some money by applying our calculated strategy but we make it back but their preflop folds."


Second Question:
Even though '2' may be even more profitable ... The approach '1' that considers a random range of the opponent could be seen as more truly GTO than 2?

Thank you

Just as observation-curiosity, these doubts about the opposing range came to me as follows:

Watching players, they say something like "This villain is unknown, so I'm going to play based on GTO ..."
And soon after, they were thinking about the opponent's range: "The villain probably have this cards or the other ..."
Which did not make sense to me, because if he's playing based GTO, why the hell is he thinking about his opponent's range? A game based on GTO, should not you disregard the opponent's hole cards? Why is he wasting time thinking about his opponent's range, if this should not affect his strategy?
At first, I thought this was because a GTO-based game was very complex, and players use plausible ranges of the opponent to facilitate their decision making, although a truly GTO-based strategy should disregard the opponent's cards.

The problem was when I started testing on the solvers, I saw that they were also considering the opponent's cards.
So I thought, why the hell even solvers are using opponent ranges? Should not they work with random ranges of opponent?
And this bugged my mind xD